I don't see the improvement in this team other than the record, but I attribute that to a weak opening schedule and playing the Lions twice.

This team hasn't improved and it shows when we play top competition. The lone exception being the 49ers but that took a perfect game from Ponder and the defense.

So you can attribute the good start to a weak opening schedule but you can't attribute the team's recent struggles to a difficult mid-late season schedule but rather the coaching?

Talk about a double standard. The team plays well and you say it's only a product of a weak schedule but when the team struggles against some of the top teams in the NFL and it's all on the coaching?

And I LOVE how people give credit to Ponder/defense for the 9ers win and give the coaching zero credit yet blame all the loses on the coaching and blame the team's play on the coaches and not preparing the team.

Yet another double standard.

It was the only game where it appeared we had a good all around game plan and the players executed.

Now I ask you...if the players aren't executing, how much do you assert that to coaching or just poor talent?

Look at what Frazier has to work with. Do you think that any coach could be a playoff team with the team given to Frazier as it stands right now?

Legit question.

It has a lot to do with poor talent, but the coaches are also not putting the players in a position to succeed; that is particularly true on offense.

As for any coach making this a playoff team, it would certainly be an uphill battle, but I would think coaches such as Belichick, McCarthy, and aat few others would know how to shape this team to minimize mistakes, and, if we did that, I could see this team being 8-4 right now (Wins in Washington/Green Bay)_________________RPMs Viking Roster/Cap TrackerAverage Draft Selections

I don't see the improvement in this team other than the record, but I attribute that to a weak opening schedule and playing the Lions twice.

This team hasn't improved and it shows when we play top competition. The lone exception being the 49ers but that took a perfect game from Ponder and the defense.

So you can attribute the good start to a weak opening schedule but you can't attribute the team's recent struggles to a difficult mid-late season schedule but rather the coaching?

Talk about a double standard. The team plays well and you say it's only a product of a weak schedule but when the team struggles against some of the top teams in the NFL and it's all on the coaching?

And I LOVE how people give credit to Ponder/defense for the 9ers win and give the coaching zero credit yet blame all the loses on the coaching and blame the team's play on the coaches and not preparing the team.

Yet another double standard.

It was the only game where it appeared we had a good all around game plan and the players executed.

Now I ask you...if the players aren't executing, how much do you assert that to coaching or just poor talent?

Look at what Frazier has to work with. Do you think that any coach could be a playoff team with the team given to Frazier as it stands right now?

Legit question.

It has a lot to do with poor talent, but the coaches are also not putting the players in a position to succeed; that is particularly true on offense.

As for any coach making this a playoff team, it would certainly be an uphill battle, but I would think coaches such as Belichick, McCarthy, and aat few others would know how to shape this team to minimize mistakes, and, if we did that, I could see this team being 8-4 right now (Wins in Washington/Green Bay)

Fair enough.

I personally think that destroying yet another coaching staff in a span of 4 seasons will do more harm than good. See; San Francisco.

But how long do you give a young coach? Can you really pull the plug after realistically 2 seasons especially during an admitted rebuilding project?

Of the coaches you mentioned, Belichick has been in the NFL as a coach since 1975. McCarthy since 1993. Frazier since 1999.

Heck, Belichick has been a HEAD COACH only one year less than Frazier has been an NFL coach. He took over the Pats in 2000.

We agree that some players fresh out of college need time to adjust to the pro game, but head coaches don't get the same leash? They get no time to learn/grow as coaches? How many higher draft pick players get cut after two seasons? Why should coaches get cut aka fired after two seasons ESPECIALLY during a rebuilding time with one of, if not the youngest teams in the entire NFL?

If Frazier was given the 2009 Vikings and the team showed the same mistakes they do in 2012, I'd be right there with you. But I can't say the same for a 2nd year (I don't count 2010) head coach given a complete rebuilding project.

It's like firing a race car driver for performing poorly when he has a Geo Metro compared to the other racers' Corvettes._________________"Man, Adrian Peterson doesn't get tackled. He just decides that's enough for one carry."

My reason for saying Frazier will be gone is because when Rick Spielman was given full control of chosing the head coach he had an incumbent coach and not necessarily his guy. Spielman has also distanced himself from the assistant coaching decisions so those are all on Frazier.

My reason for saying Frazier will be gone is because when Rick Spielman was given full control of chosing the head coach he had an incumbent coach and not necessarily his guy. Spielman has also distanced himself from the assistant coaching decisions so those are all on Frazier.

If this team finishes the season without winning another game or maybe only winning one I could see Spielman using that as an excuse to bring in "his" guy.

this could certainly be the case. most say that the Vikings overachieved this year, but when you look at how the team finished and how they werent able to maintain that level of success through the course of the season, it could certainly be means for firing Frazier. There were some bad losses against teams who are similar to us or worse, like the Redskins, Seahawks, Buccaneers and Bears. I get that the team has a rough schedule to close the year, at the same time, the Vikings were struggling before they hit the difficult part. For me, a playoff spot clinches Frazier's job. If the Vikings dont make the playoffs, but are right around .500, I think there could be some discussion about Frazier's job security, but it probably wont result in anything. If the Vikings finish 6-10, then yes, I think the Vikings will have a serious discussion about his future.

I dont think Frazier is going anywhere, id rather see this team make the playoffs are be right in the thick of things by the end of it.

I think the incredibly low expectations were misguided. A lot of that was due to Peterson's status and the incorrect belief that our defense was as bad as they looked last year.

I said before the season that our defense would be better than many expected. We had too much talent, when healthy, to be that bad. Other than health the problem was Leslie Fraizer making Fred Pagac the defensive coordinator. Which goes back to heart of this discussion.

I am of the opinion that 6-10 or 7-9 should be the floor for this team not the ceiling. The 3-13 season should have never happened either.

It all goes back to Leslie Fraizer's decision making. Whether it is coaching or the staff that he hand picked._________________

Frazier's demeanor and experience in the NFL are exactly what most of the successful coaches exhibit. Guys like the Ditka, Gruden and Parcells come along far more often than guys like Dungy, Billechek, Knoll, Landry and Grant; yet, only Parcells and Jimmy Johnson have one more than one SB as a "fiery coach." The others all burned-out their teams within a couple years and they rode off to the announcing booth.

Of the SuperBowls won, most (say 75%) are won by leaders exhibiting characteristics just like Frazier. Some day there may be a Minnesota newspaper headline of "Down Goes Frazier!" but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The thing most average guys don't see are the strategic business decisions being made in the organization . . . the head coach has a voice in that, but he's two or three tiers down the org chart. It's the HC's job to work with the GM and other VPs to develop facilities, procedures/processes, and organizational goals that give the players and other coaches the best setting/atmosphere to develop talent and chemistry. I think the Vikes were years behind the power curve under McCombs and they're just starting to come through the fog of problems with the previous culture.

Now, looking foward Frazier and Spielman will both be held accountable if the team fails to grow and deliver. Both of these guys know the corporation exists to make money. And, the Vikes currently have cash cows on the roster, so the team will sell tickets and jerseys. Eventually, you gotta win to trump that.

But Frazier also knows there are some talent issues and he'll get those addressed with this year's draft and maybe a FA signing or two. When they address the position shortfalls, they'll turn the heat up on the team performance. Huh? you ask?

Every team in peril goes through a tempered process of re-building, and no smart head coach is going to take a team from 3-13 to 11-5 in one season only to falter the following year and have no fall-back position. If a HC does that and then goes to 6-10 or 5-11, he's a HC for three years, not 5 or 10.

Childress did it, going 6-10 and everyone said, oh that was because Tice had things soooooo screwed up. Not sure anyone remembers, but that first year was tempered, they ran-ran-passed on nearly every offensive series. Childress made coaching calls that cost games, and I'm grateful that he did -- with the #7 overall draft choice the Vikes picked?

So, last year Frazier was in the same boat, and the Vikes took Kalil. The team will win double the number from last year, and have shown, they're competitive with playoff teams.

Next year, when the expectations are higher, we can all voice total displeasure when the Vikes go 9-7 and miss the playoffs . . . but untill then, there won't be any headlines . . .

I said before the season that our defense would be better than many expected. We had too much talent, when healthy, to be that bad. Other than health the problem was Leslie Fraizer making Fred Pagac the defensive coordinator.

Question: Does the DC pick the scheme or is it the HC? Or maybe both?

I for one think that the Cover 2 is an obsolete defense in today's era. Good QBs (like the 3 QBs we play twice a season) can pick apart the open zones. I also don't think this team has the personnel to run a successful Cover 2 pass defense including linebackers who are poor in pass coverage.

I kind of think of it like the Timberwolves offense under Kurt Rambis. Rambis tried to force his Laker offense onto a team that wasn't suited for it. The result? Well we know...

That's one thing I don't like about Frazier. It seems he's sticking with the defense that he's comfortable running not what best suits the team/times.

My opinion. May be off._________________"Man, Adrian Peterson doesn't get tackled. He just decides that's enough for one carry."

Frazier's demeanor and experience in the NFL are exactly what most of the successful coaches exhibit. Guys like the Ditka, Gruden and Parcells come along far more often than guys like Dungy, Billechek, Knoll, Landry and Grant; yet, only Parcells and Jimmy Johnson have one more than one SB as a "fiery coach." The others all burned-out their teams within a couple years and they rode off to the announcing booth.

Of the SuperBowls won, most (say 75%) are won by leaders exhibiting characteristics just like Frazier. Some day there may be a Minnesota newspaper headline of "Down Goes Frazier!" but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The thing most average guys don't see are the strategic business decisions being made in the organization . . . the head coach has a voice in that, but he's two or three tiers down the org chart. It's the HC's job to work with the GM and other VPs to develop facilities, procedures/processes, and organizational goals that give the players and other coaches the best setting/atmosphere to develop talent and chemistry. I think the Vikes were years behind the power curve under McCombs and they're just starting to come through the fog of problems with the previous culture.

Now, looking foward Frazier and Spielman will both be held accountable if the team fails to grow and deliver. Both of these guys know the corporation exists to make money. And, the Vikes currently have cash cows on the roster, so the team will sell tickets and jerseys. Eventually, you gotta win to trump that.

But Frazier also knows there are some talent issues and he'll get those addressed with this year's draft and maybe a FA signing or two. When they address the position shortfalls, they'll turn the heat up on the team performance. Huh? you ask?

Every team in peril goes through a tempered process of re-building, and no smart head coach is going to take a team from 3-13 to 11-5 in one season only to falter the following year and have no fall-back position. If a HC does that and then goes to 6-10 or 5-11, he's a HC for three years, not 5 or 10.

Childress did it, going 6-10 and everyone said, oh that was because Tice had things soooooo screwed up. Not sure anyone remembers, but that first year was tempered, they ran-ran-passed on nearly every offensive series. Childress made coaching calls that cost games, and I'm grateful that he did -- with the #7 overall draft choice the Vikes picked?

So, last year Frazier was in the same boat, and the Vikes took Kalil. The team will win double the number from last year, and have shown, they're competitive with playoff teams.

Next year, when the expectations are higher, we can all voice total displeasure when the Vikes go 9-7 and miss the playoffs . . . but untill then, there won't be any headlines . . .

He wont be fired this year. This team is already on the rise and is much improved from last year. Musgrave is who needs to be fired. The players like playing for him....I dont think he's going anywhere_________________

Frazier's demeanor and experience in the NFL are exactly what most of the successful coaches exhibit. Guys like the Ditka, Gruden and Parcells come along far more often than guys like Dungy, Billechek, Knoll, Landry and Grant; yet, only Parcells and Jimmy Johnson have one more than one SB as a "fiery coach." The others all burned-out their teams within a couple years and they rode off to the announcing booth.

Of the SuperBowls won, most (say 75%) are won by leaders exhibiting characteristics just like Frazier. Some day there may be a Minnesota newspaper headline of "Down Goes Frazier!" but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The thing most average guys don't see are the strategic business decisions being made in the organization . . . the head coach has a voice in that, but he's two or three tiers down the org chart. It's the HC's job to work with the GM and other VPs to develop facilities, procedures/processes, and organizational goals that give the players and other coaches the best setting/atmosphere to develop talent and chemistry. I think the Vikes were years behind the power curve under McCombs and they're just starting to come through the fog of problems with the previous culture.

Now, looking foward Frazier and Spielman will both be held accountable if the team fails to grow and deliver. Both of these guys know the corporation exists to make money. And, the Vikes currently have cash cows on the roster, so the team will sell tickets and jerseys. Eventually, you gotta win to trump that.

But Frazier also knows there are some talent issues and he'll get those addressed with this year's draft and maybe a FA signing or two. When they address the position shortfalls, they'll turn the heat up on the team performance. Huh? you ask?

Every team in peril goes through a tempered process of re-building, and no smart head coach is going to take a team from 3-13 to 11-5 in one season only to falter the following year and have no fall-back position. If a HC does that and then goes to 6-10 or 5-11, he's a HC for three years, not 5 or 10.

Childress did it, going 6-10 and everyone said, oh that was because Tice had things soooooo screwed up. Not sure anyone remembers, but that first year was tempered, they ran-ran-passed on nearly every offensive series. Childress made coaching calls that cost games, and I'm grateful that he did -- with the #7 overall draft choice the Vikes picked?

So, last year Frazier was in the same boat, and the Vikes took Kalil. The team will win double the number from last year, and have shown, they're competitive with playoff teams.

Next year, when the expectations are higher, we can all voice total displeasure when the Vikes go 9-7 and miss the playoffs . . . but untill then, there won't be any headlines . . .

Excellent post!!

I completely missed this post. It hits on everything I was trying to say but 100x better!_________________"Man, Adrian Peterson doesn't get tackled. He just decides that's enough for one carry."

Last year, we came in expected to be better than we were, but wound up 3-13. This is the point that our rebuilding process began. What kind of message does it send to potential coaching candidates if you're known as the team that fires it's coach who doubles their win total in the first year of a rebuilding process?!

Coaches look for job stability. If we fire Frazier, we will never get a good coach to replace him because no one would view this as a stable situation.